“Capacity building” is a term from the Grantonese language usually referring to an organization’s systemic effort to secure ever greater amounts of money on a consistent basis. It is not to be confused with “sustainability,” another word from the original Grantonese, referring to that state of fiscal nirvana in which a nonprofit believes it will not have to worry about money for any foreseeable future. It is believed that this mythical state is the “pot” at the end of the capacity building “rainbow,” but as so few charities have ever come back to tell us about that perfect state of sustainability, there is little empirical evidence to prove it actually exists.

I admit I am biased when it comes to the use of these two terms. That’s because I am a lover of language, and a lover of the very essence – and presumed end — of the not-for-profit movement.

Thus, I would banish “capacity building” from all discourse on the topic of making change in the community and the world. For one, it’s not language I would use in the company of growing children sitting around the dinner table. And if I can’t use it there, what hope do I have of successfully using it to inspire busy, distracted adult volunteers sitting around the board table once a month (or less)?

As for “sustainability,” I simply find to be a sad little word, and for that reason would abolish its use in our sector. “Sustainability” admits defeat. It implies that our organization – alone or in concert with other community initiatives – has no hope of ever vanquishing the social or community “wrong,” or deficit, our charity seeks to “right.” It sets our organizational bar at being around forever rather than succeeding in making itself obsolete.

So I beg, dear gentle Reader, that you forgive me in advance for restraining myself from using those terms except when I’m traveling in Grantland, just as I only toss “ciao” about when in Italy, or “dog” when I’m watching American Idol.